THE GROWTH RATE OF STONY CORALS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: EFFECTS FROM PAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS

(1)

I

GROWTH RATE OF STONY CORALS

OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA:

EFFECTS

FROM PAST

BEACH

RENOURISHMENT

PROJECTS

RICHARD E. DODGE, Ph.D.

NOVA UNIVERSITY OCEANOGRAPHIC CENTER 8000 NORTH OCEAN DRIVE

DANIA, FLORIDA 33004

AND

BROWARD COUNTY

EROSION PREVENTION DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

955 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316

(2)

I

(3)

I

THE GROWTH RATE OF STONY CORALS

OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA:

I

EFFECTS FROM PAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS

I

Richard E. Dodge, Ph.D.

I

Nova University Oceanographic Center

8000 N. Ocean Drive Dania, FL 33004

I

June, 1987

I

(4)

I

'

I

(5)

I

THE GROWTH RATE OF STONY CORALS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: EFFECTS FROM PAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS

OUTLINE/TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 3

1. INTRODUCTION 4

I

1.1) PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY 4

I

1.2) BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4

1.2.1) Coral Environmental Relations 4

I

1 .2.2) Coral Growth 6

1.2.3) Southeast Fla. Corals and Coral Reefs 8

2. METHODS AND MATERlALS 10

2.1) PHYSICAL METHODS 10 2.1.1) Collection 10

I

_________Crable 1)__ (Figs. laI 1b, 2) 2.1.2) Cutting, X-radiography 11

(Figs. 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b)

I

2.1.3) Measurements of Growth Bands 12

(Fig. 5)

2.1.4) Data Set Description 13

I

2.2) MATHEMATICAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES 13

2.2.1) Raw Data 13

2 .2 .2) Normalization 13

2.2.3) Master Chronologies 14

2.2.4) Environmental Data 14

2 .2 .5) Statistical Analyses: ANOVA and SNK 14

I

(6)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1) RAW DATA: SITE COMPARISONS (Tables 2, 3)

(Fig. 6)

3.2) NORMALIZED DATA: SITE COMPARISONS

3.2.1) Site Chronologies and Correlation Analysis

(Figs. 7a,7b,7c,7d, 8a,8b, 9a,9b) (Tables 4, 5)

I

16

I

16

I

17

I

17

I

3.2.2) Results: Site Comparisons;

Relationships to Beach Renourishment Effects 19 (Differences related to periods of beach

renourishment: among sites at individual and groups of years; among years within sites.)

(Tables 6, 7, 8)

i. Pompano, 1970 i1. Hallandale, 1971

ii1. Hillsboro, 1973

ivo Lloyd Park, 1976-1977

V. Hollywood-Hallandale, 1979

v i . Pompano, 1983

3.2.3) Environmental Relationships (Figs. 10a,10b, 11a,11b)

(TabIe 9) 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5. REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLES FIGURES

I

21 22

I

23 24 24

I

26 27

I

29

I

31 34 35 56

I

(7)

I

THE GROWTH RATE OF STONY CORALS OF BROWARD COUNTV, FLORIDA: EFFECTS FROM PAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS

ABSTRACT

I

The skeletal growth of hermatypic (reef-building) corals is a sensitive indicator of environmental conditions and perturbations. In particular, excessive sedimentation and turbidity act to depress coral growth because energy expenditure

is required to remove sediment and because turbidity reduces light energy necessary for coral health and nutrition.

I

Normalized annual growth (linear skeletal extension) rates of Broward County, Florida reef-building corals were examined over 16 years (1985-1970). Star corals (Montastrea annularis) and brain corals (Diploria labyrinthiformis) were collected from each of four reef sites at two depths (9m and 18m). Collection areas were located in the vicinity of possible adverse sedimentation/turbidity effects from one or more of six past beach renourishment projects.

I

Coral growth differences among sites at particular years and among years within sites were statistically evaluated. Years tested included those of and subsequent -to each of six past beach renourishment projects. The results are suggestive that, in general, Broward County beach renourishment projects have had minor or no influence on currently living off-shore corals.

I

However, following the Hollywood-Hallandale renourishment project of 1979, ~ labyrinthiformis from the Hollywood 18m site exhibited significantly lower normalized growth compared to other sites. This may not represent effects from the renourishment project. At the Hollywood site M. annularis from both 9m and 18m and D. labyrinthiformis from 9m-did not exhibit significantly

lowered growth in comparison to other sites.

I

Site averages of absolute coral growth indicated that southern 9m specimens had higher rates of growth than northern counterparts for ~ annularis. In the southern collection sites, 9m growth of both species tended to be greater than 18m growth.

I

Correlation analysis indicated that the time pattern of coral growth is similar among sites, species, and depths. Comparison of time series of caral growth data to recorded environmental variables (temperature and salinity) revealed a positive relation with salinity (water density) variations.

I

(8)

I

(9)

I

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1) PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

A growth survey of stony corals from reefs of Broward County, Florida was initiated to evaluate the ecological effects of past beach renourishment projects. Annual skeletal growth rates over at least 1985-1970 were measured for two coral species: Montastrea annularis (star coral) and Diploria labyrinthiformis (brain coral). Specimens were selected from two depths (approximately 9m and 18m) at each of four reef areas (near Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, and Deerfield Beach) . Sites were chosen for assessment because of their proximity to sand borrow areas used for past beach renourishment projects conducted during one or more of the years: 1970, 1971,

1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, and 1983.

1.2) BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.2.1) Coral Environmental Relations

Reef-building corals are coelenterate animals. Residing within their living animal tissue are symbiotic photosynthetic dinoflagellate algae, called zooxanthellae. In return for relative protection, these plant cells provide the coral animal with nutrients and assistance in removal of metabolic wastes. Coral animal tissue secretes a skeleton of calcium carbonate for structural support and living space. The coral-algal relationship promotes skeleton formation and relatively rapid growth rate. Fast growth is important because over time hermatypic (reef-building) corals produce massive skeletons which, together with many others, can serve as the structural

(10)

framework of a coral reef.

Hermatypic corals occur primarily within warm and clear sub-tropical waters and require specialized conditions for their growth, health, and survival. Because of their narrow range of

ecological parameters, they are sensitive to a variety of

environmental perturbations. Good reviews of the subject are

provided by Wells (1957), Yonge (1963), Stoddart (1969),

Buddemeier and Kinzie (1976), and Pastorok and Bilyard (1985). The algal association requires that reef-building corals receive and utilize light energy of greater or lesser amounts depending upon species. Consequently, an important requirement

for coral health is that turbidity in the ambient water be

relatively low. Particulate material in the water column

increases light attenuation and may, af ter certain levels are

reached, adversely affect corals through decreased light

availability.

Physical sedimentation onto corals mayalso occur in the presence of turbidity effects. Most coral species have a limited ability to shed sediment which has fallen onto their surfaces. High sedimentation rates, however, may produce stress whereby the

coral has to divert energy from growth and reproduction to

sediment removal. Although there is a gradient of species

specific responses, heavy sedimentation can destroy all or part of the coral tissue through smothering effects (e.g., Rogers,

1983; Hubbard and Pocoek, 1972; Bak and Elgershuizen, 1976). Most coral species prefer salinities of normal open ocean values. Corals and reefs are rare or absent near river mouths or

I

(11)

I

salinity tolerance.

The temperature regime for hermatypic corals must be tropical to subtropical. Extremely high temperatures may be lethal and coral reefs are rare, depopulated, or absent where the mean annual temperature falls below approximately 18 degrees centigrade. Many species have both an optimum temperature and salini ty for best growth and survival. "Deviation of salini ty and/or light from optimal values may narrow the range of tolerabIe temperatures and interfere with vital temperature related physiological mechanisms in reef corals." (Coles and Jokiel, 1978). Finally, corals require sufficient quantities of additional nutrients in the form of zooplankton, bacteria, or dissolved organics. The relative importance of various nutrient sources has not been determined with accuracy.

1.2.2) Coral Growth

The calcium carbonate coral skeleton is not a block of solid limestone material. Rather, it is composed of a more or less dense network of interconnecting architectural elements designed for structural integrity. A unique feature of the coral skeleton provides a tooI for evaluation of past events or processes which may have impacted the coral organism. The skeletons of many coral species contain alternating cycles of high and low density calcium carbonate architecture. These growth increments or bands are visible through X-radiography of medial slabs of the coral skeleton. A complete cycle of high and low density skeleton material has been shown to be annual in a number of studies (e.g., Knutson et al., 1972; Dodge et al., 1974; Dodge and

(12)

Thompson, 1974; Macintyre and Smith, 1974; Noshkin et al., 1975; Hudson et al., 1976).

A variety of studies have utilized X-radiograph revealed coral growth banding for determining environmental relationships or evaluating environmental perturbations. Dodge et al. (1974) and Aller and Dodge (1974) studied growth rates of Montastrea annularis in Discovery Bay, Jamaica and found that average annual

band widths were decreased in specimens from regions of high resuspension of bottom sediments. Loya (1976) found that as

sedimentation rates increased on Puerto Rican reefs, coral growth

rates decreased. Dodge and Vaisnys (1977) examined the

deleterious ecological effects of dredging on corals in CastIe Harbor, Bermuda. Hudson (1981) reported a relationship between

decreased growth of Florida Keys corals and past dredging events.

Dodge and Lang (1983) related decreased coral growth rate on the

Flower Gardens Bank reefs of the Western Gulf of Mexico to

discharge volumes of the Achafalaya River. Dodge and Brass

(1984) found decreased mass growth rates of corals within a

relatively polluted harbor in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands compared to corals outside the harbor. Cortes and Risk (1985) found significant inverse correlation between coral growth rates and siltation rates on Costa Rican reefs which they related to increasing sedimentation stress from land deforestation.

Tomascik and Sander (1985) found that suspended particulate matter correlated with Montastrea annularis skeletal growth up to a certain maximum concentration. Af ter this, reduction of growth

I

(13)

I

zooxanthellae photosynthesis.

1.2.3) Southeast Florida Corals and Coral Reefs

The ecology of southeast Florida offshore coral reefs of Broward and Palm Beach Counties has been described by Goldberg (1973). Additional biological information for Broward County is available in Raymond (1978), Raymond and Antonius (1977), and Goldberg (1984) as well as from a variety of other technical reports. The geology of southeast Florida reefs is given by Duane and Meisburger (1969), Lighty (1977), and Lighty et al. (1978). More geological details on Broward reefs are provided by Raymond (1972).

In general, southeast Florida reefs are considered to be "relict" or fossil structures which are not in an active growth mode, but which are now veneered by a variety of living reef organisms. The area has been characterized as an octocoral-dominated hardground community (Goldberg, 1973; Jaap, 1984). Although, in comparison to reefs of the Caribbean, coral coverage is relatively low, the hermatypic or reef-building coral fauna forms a valuable component of the community structure. These animals form the principal means by which material is actively incorporated into the reef framework, albeit slowly. The corals also provide varying degrees of surface relief to the reefs which, in turn, provides necessary'habi~ats for a variety of fish and shellfish species.

Among common stony coral species on Broward reefs are the star coral Montastrea annularis and the brain coral Diploria labyrinthiformis. Skeletal growth of corals in Broward County

(14)

is relatively low ranging from 0.35-0.50 cm/yr (this report). Low growth rate may be due primarily to temperature stress from

increasingly colder water northward from the Keys. Growth rates of ~. annularis have been determined at a variety of reef sites in the Caribbean and Florida. For example, Hudson (1981) reports values ranging from 0.6 to 1.1 cm/yr for specimens from Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park.

A perceived cause of sedimentation and turbidity stress to

offshore reefs in the southeast Florida area is beach

renourishment. Beach renourishment projects typically consist

of dredging sand deposits lying between the reefs for

redeposition on local beaches. While there are established

turbidity guidelines for Class III waters (29 NTU, 50 JTU

equivalent) (DER Rules and Regulations), concern is of ten

expressed about both lethal and subIethal effects to reef

organisms as a result of mechanical activities and/or

sedimentation-turbidity generated by these operations.

I

(15)

I

2. METHODS AND MATERlALS 2.1) PHYSICAL METHODS

2.1.1) Collection

Specimens of two stony coral species, M. annularis and ~ labyrinthiformis, (Figs. la, 1b) were collected by the author and members of the Broward County Erosion Prevention District using SCUBA. Reef areas of interest were chosen and later located in the field by shore reference and fathometer trace. Divers then surveyed the reef by swimming with the current. Specimens were loosened from the substrate with a rock hammer or pry bar, put in collection bags (or tied off), and raised to the surface with air bags for vessel pickup. Collected corals ranged in thickness

(base to top) from 10-40cm.

Four reef locations (offshore of: Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, and Deerfield Beach) were surveyed at each of two depths (Mid: approximately 6-10m; Deep: 15-20m). Fig. 2 shows area of survey and collection on each reef. The more offshore rectangles indicate the Deep collection areas. Table 1 lists collection sites, depths, dates of collection, number of specimens obtained, and number of specimens suitable for use from each site and depth.

Af ter survey and preliminary collection, the Ft. Lauderdale Deep site was omitted from the study due to lack of readily available ~ labyrinthiformis and heavy bioerosion of existing ~ annularis (e.g., see Figs. 4a and 4b). Scarcity of specimens may have been caused in part by anchor damage and anchor chain chafing from large ships awaiting entry into Port Everglades.

For convenience a four letter abbreviation designates each

(16)

site, depth, and species. The first letter refers to the site (H=Hollywood, F=Ft. Lauderdale, P=Pompano, D=Deerfield). The second letter refers to the depth (M=Mid 9m; D=Deep 18m). The

third and fourth letters refer to species (MA=Montastrea

annularis; DL=Diploria labyrinthiformis). For example, the

Hollywood Mid dep th ~ annularis collection site is abbreviated to HMMA.

2.1.2) Cutting, X-radiography

Specimens were transported to Nova University Oceanographic Center for analysis. Af ter air drying for 1 week, each coral was sectioned

parallel

with a diamond bit masonry saw to obtain several (2-8) sided slabs 0.5-0.7cm in thickness (Fig. 3a). Slabs

were oriented approximately normal to the upward growth direction

of the coral.

Slabs were X-radiographed onto single sheet, paper covered,

Kodak AA Industrial X-ray film using a source to subject distance

of 1.5m and an exposure of 70 KvP, 10 ma, and times of 10-20

seconds. X-radiograph negatives were developed, dried, and

printed onto photographic paper (Fig. 3b).

X-radiograph positives were inspected for quality of revealed density banding. The minimum acceptable time period, 1985-1970, was chosen prior to the commencement of the study. Specimens were rejected from further analysis if banding was indistinct, if the coral could not be viewed because of bioerosion effects (Figs. 4a and 4b), or if the growth record was less :_:an16 years. For remaining specimens, the X-radiograph

I

(17)

I

1 -I

I

Individual growth bands were assigned years of formation from the known collection date and observation of the band formation at the skeleton growth surface. Methods are discussed in more detail in Dodge and Vaisnys (1980).

2.1.3) Measurements of Growth Bands

To measure coral growth rate, two transects were drawn on each X-radiograph positive in regions of clear banding and typically within approximately 20 degrees of the axis of maximum growth of the coral (Fig. 5). Highly variable growth form of specimens often precluded placing transects on the exact axis of maximum growth.

Band boundaries were marked on each transect at the upper (youngest) portion of the high density band of each annual cycle. Complete bands were assigned appropriate years of formation. Band dimensions were measured with precision calipers to hundredths of a centimeter for each year on each transect. As demonstrated by sequential observations of band type and dimensions at the surface, the high density band of both species appears to begin formation in approximately June and to be completed by August or September. Consequently, a full coral year encompasses roughly August to August. By convention, the named year refers to the most recent calendar year (e.g, coral year of August, 1983 to August, 1984 is designated as coral year

1984).

(18)

I

2.1.4) Data Set Description

The last column in Table 1 lists the numbers of specimens of each species at each site available for analysis. On these corals, yearly growth was measured over at least 1985-1970.

2.2) MATHEMATICAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES 2.2.1) Raw Data

The primary goal of this study was to evaluate differences

in coral growth both among sites at particular years and among years within each site in relation to prior beach renourishment projects. Past work and results of this project, however, have demonstrated that the average growth rates of individual corals typically are significantly different among neighbors on a given reef (e.g., Dodge and Lang, 1983; Dodge and Brass, 1984). Absolute growth rate differences among individual corals are a source of variability which complicates higher level analyses. Furthermore, raw growth data of this study contain an additional source of variability. As discussed above, measurement transects could not always be placed in the same relative position on each coral.

Nevertheless, to provide an overview of site characteristics and to evaluate the importance of individual growth differences, average growth rates of the two coral species were calculated and compared among sites.

2.2.2) Normalization

Normalized or index growth data were used to remove complicating effects of differing specimen mean growth andjor of

(19)

I

yearly raw data growth measurements of each transect by the appropriate 16 year (1985-1970) transect mean. 1985-1970 was chosen as the normalization period because it was the longest

~

time span common to all measured corals. Graphic and statistical site and year comparisons were conducted with index data.

2.2.3) Master Chronologies

For evaluation of time patterns of growth, master index chronologies were constructed for collection sites by depth and species. A summary or whole coral index chronology for each coral was initially calculated by averaging the index values of the two transects by year. Master chronologies were then calculated by averaging by year all desired whole coral index values of the site or larger groupings. Figs. 7(a-d), 8(a,b), and 9(a,b) provide examples.

2.2.4) Environmental Data

Miami Beach Tide Station monthly mean sea surface temperature and water density (corrected to 15 degrees centigrade) were obtained from NOAA. Data covered 1980-1956 for temperature and 1981-1954 for water density. No long term environmental time series data were available from nearshore locations in Broward County.

2.2.5) Statistical Analyses: ANOVA and SNK

A variety of statistical tests were performed to summarize and interpret the large amount of coral growth data. The standard statistical significance level of at least p<.05 (95% probability) was employed. For extra confidence, the p<.Ol (99%

(20)

probability) level was used in some cases.

1) Significant differenees among raw data site ave rage growth rates were tested by ANOVA (one-way analysis of varianee,

3 level nested) (Sokal and Rohlf,. 1981). Speeifie site

differenees were isolated by the SNK test (Zar, 1974).

2) Differenees among site ~ index growth values at partieular years or groups of years were tested with one-way nested ANOVA followed by the SNK test to isolate speeifie site differenees.

3) Differenees among yearly index means within partieular site were tested by ANOVA (one-way nested). The

each SNK

I

test was used to determine which years signifieantly differed.

4) Similarities among the time patterns of normalized coral growth were assessed by eorrelation eoefficients ealeulated over speeified time periods among the chronologies of sites and larger groupings.

5)

temperature

Available environmental time series and density) were eompared to coral

(e. g. , water growth master chronology time series by eorrelation analysis.

(21)

I

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1) RAW DATA: SITE COMPARISONS

Fig. 6 depiets average growth rate (cm/yr) of the two coral species at each site for 1985-1970. Table 2 provides detailed results. In general, southern Mid (9m) depth specimens had higher rates of growth than northern counterparts for M. annularis. In the southern collection sites, Mid (9m) depth growth of both species tended to be greater than Deep (18m) depth growth.

Differences among the average growth rates of corals at each of the seven sites (including Mid and Deep) were tested by one-way ANOVA for each species. The three level nested design evaluated differences among the main grouping of sites, the subgroupings of corals within sites, and the subsubgroupings of years within corals, each with two replications. ANOVA results indicated significant differences for all categories. SNK testing isolated specific site differences. Results are summarized in Table 3 and described below.

Hollywood Mid ~ annularis corals (HMMA) had significantly greater mean growth than corals of all other sites at either depth. Growth of Ft. Lauderdale Mid site (FMMA)

significantly greater than that of Pompano Deep

Hollywood Deep (HDMA) sites respectively. There were no other significant differences among sites for ~ annularis.

D. labyrinthiformis corals from the Hollywood Mid site (HMDL) had significantly greater mean growth rate than that of the lowest growth site, Hollywood Deep (HDDL). There were no other significant differences among sites for this species.

corals (PDMA)

was and

(22)

I

As noted, each ANOVA also indicated significant differences among the means of individual corals within sites. This result justifies the following use of index growth values for reduction of variability and increased statistical precision.

3.2) NORMALIZED DATA: SITE COMPARISONS

3.2.1) Site Chronologies and Correlation Analysis Chronologies

In order to visualize coral growth changes and Eatterns over time, it is helpful to refer to graphs of averaged index values or master chronologies. Master chronologies emphasize the common variation of grouped corals by filtering out individual variability. Figs. 7 (a-d) illustrate the master chronologies of each site by depth and species. All chronologies are plotted over 1985-1960. Figs. 8a and 8b provide alternative combinations showing each of the Mid and Deep depth site master chronologies by species group. Fig. 9a depicts the grand mas~er chronologies for each species-depth grouping. Fig. 9b depicts the grand master for all corals of each species.

It is readily apparent that there are similarities among the time patterns of site chronologies. Particularly evident are the common growth depression in 1970 and growth elevations in 1981 and 1975-1977. There are also obvious deviations. Details of correlation among sites are discussed below.

Correlations

(23)

I

for each pair of site master chronologies over 1985-1970 are presented in Table 4. At the bottom of the table

correlations between master chronologies of all Mid depth, Deep depth, and all corals for both MA and DL.

The results of Table 4 (1985-1970) show many significant correlations between site masters even at the p<.05 level. The average correlations of MA site groupings are greater than the average of DL site groupings (see also Figs. 8a and 8b). For the grand master chronologies (bottom of table) correlation between MA Mid and Deep corals is greater than for Mid and Deep DL (see also Fig. 9a). Correlation is higher between species at the Mid depth than at the Deep depth. The grand master chronologies of all MA and all DL are highly correlated (see also Fig. 9b).

are all

Table 5 provides correlation coefficients over the longer 1985-1960 time period. Index values for these masters were calculated using the 1985-1960 raw growth average for consistency. This data set may not be as accurate as the data set for 1985-1970 because all corals did not contain measurements over the entire 1985-60 time period. Therefore, years older than 1970 may have fewer corals for averaging into the master.

The results of Table 5 (1985-1960) are similar to those of Table 4. Average correlations of MA site groupings are greater than the average of DL site groupings with the exception of the Deep sites (see also Figs. 8a and 8b). For both species the Mid depth ave rage correlation is higher than the Deep depth average. For the grand master chronologies (bottom of table) correlation between MA Mid and Deep corals is greater than for Mid and Deep

(24)

3.2.2) Results: Site Comparisons; Beach Renourishment Effects

Table 6 presents dates, durations, and sediment volumes of past Broward County beach renourishment projects. Also listed

Relationships to

I

DL (see also Fig. 9a). Correlation is similar between species at

both depths. The grand master chronologies for all MA and all DL are highly correlated (see also Fig. 9b).

are potentially affected coral collection sites and growth years. Many beach projects were conducted in the summer months.

This season is coincident with formation of the dense band portion of the annual caral skeletal growth cycle. In these cases, therefore, at least two single years of effect are possible: the one during which renourishment began, and the one in which renourishment ended. The year in Table 6 designated by

*

is of primary interest because effects at the end of and subsequent to the project might be expected to have been recorded

in this time period. The next following single year is added for

extra analysis. Sets of possibly affected double years and triple years are also presented.

For data sets of each coral species (~ annularis and D. labyrinthiformis), one-way nested ANOVA was conducted to assess differences among site means at specific years ~ year groupings. SNK testing was used to specify the site differences. Table 7 summarizes the statistical results (grouped by single, double, and triple year tests). Where significant site differences were revealed by ANOVA, SNK results are given in matrix form.

(25)

I

differences among norma1ized year1y means within sites. One-way ANOVA was conducted on the 1985-1970 data of each species and site. SNK testing was used to isolate the specific significant differences. If a certain year corresponding with beach renourishment shows statistica11y depressed growth, and if that difference is supported

EY

other tests (e.g., the among sites ana1ysis), the among year test can provide additiona1 information concerning beach renourishment effects. Tab1e 8 summarizes statistica1 resu1ts for differences among years within sites.

Common site growth characteristics, however, must be recognized. The time pattern of cora1 growth at each site is corre1ated with other sites. In addition, all sites exhibit significant differences among years. At least some of these differences are common ones. For examp1e, for all but one site (HDDL: Ho11ywood Deep ~ 1abyrinthiformis), growth for year 1970 was the lowest (significant1y 1ess than that of all other years, depending upon site). For these reasons, resu1ts of statistica1 analyses among years within sites are probab1y 1ess powerfu1 than analyses among sites, and they are used on1y in a supporting ro1e to among sites analyses.

In the fo11owing six sections resu1ts and discussion for each renourishment project are presented. At the beginning of each section the resu1ts recapitu1ate information in Tables 7 and 8. The reader may wish to skip direct1y to the discussion of the effects of each renourishment project.

(26)

I

3.2.2.i) Pompano Beach Renourishment

I

June-Sept., 1970, 1 million cu yds

Pompano Coral Collection Site (PMMA, PDMA, PMDL, PDDL) Coral Years of Interest: 1970, 1971*, 1972

Among Sites At Particular Years (TabIe 7)

I

Single years: For coral years 1970, 1971, and 1972 SNK results revealed for bc~~ ~A and DL species that growth at Pompano Mid and Deep sites wäS not significantly different from

growth at other sites.

I

Double years: For coral years 1970-1971, MA growth at Pompano Mid and Deep sites was not significantly different from that of other sites. DL growth at the Pompano Mid site was the second lowest and was significantly less than that at the highest growth Hollywood Deep site. For coral years 1971-1972, there were no significant site differences for either species.

I

Triple years: For the three coral year groupings of 1970-1971-1972 and 1970-1971-1972-1973, growth of both species at Pompano Mid and Deep sites was not significantly different from growth at

other sites.

I

Among Year Differences Within Sites (TabIe 8)

I

Mean growth of Pompano Mid and Deep coral year 1970 is significantly lower than any other year for MA and lower than that of the 3-4 highest years for DL. (It must be noted that 1970 normalized growth within each MA site is significantly less than that any other year or most years. With the exception of Hollywood Mid, this is also true within all DL sites.)

Growth of Pompano Mid and Deep DL coral year 1971 was not significantly different from that of other years. Growth of Pompano Mid DL coral year 1972 was not significantly different from that of other years. Growth of Pompano Deep DL coral year 1972 was the fourth lowest and was significantly less than growth of the highest year (1976).

I

Discussion

I

The statistical evidence among sites does not strongly indicate that renourishment affected Pompano corals except that the growth of Pompano Deep DL was significantly depressed in the

years 1970-1971. The among year within site analyses support

I

(27)

I

3.2.2.ii) Hallandale Beach Renourishment

I

June-Sept., 1971, 400,000 cu yds

Hollywood Coral Collection Site (HMMA, HDMA, HMDL, HDDL) Caral Years of Interest: 1971, 1972*, 1973

I

Single years: For single coral years 1971, 1972, and 1973 there were no significant site differences for either species.

I

there were no significant site differences for either species.Double years: For coral years 1971-1972 and 1972-1973,

I

Triple years: For coral years 1971-1972-1973 and 1972-1973-1974, there were no significant site differences for either coral species.

I

Coral growth year 1971 had the second to lowest index value for both MA and DL species from the Hollywood Mid site. 1971 Mid MA growth was significantly less than that of the highest six years and was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970. 1971 Deep MA growth was second highest and significantly greater than that of 1970. For DL, 1971 Mid growth was not significantly different from that of other sites. 1971 DL Deep growth was significantly greater than that of lowest growth year

1979.

I

1972 Mid MA growth was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970 and was significantly less than growth of the two highest years 1976 and 1981. 1972 Deep MA growth was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970. 1972 Mid and Deep DL growth was not significantly different from other years.

I

1973 Mid MA growth was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970 and was significantly less than growth of the two highest years 1976 and 1981. 1973 Deep MA growth was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970. 1973 Mid DL growth was not significantly different from other years. 1973 Deep DL growth was the highest and was significantly greater than that of the lowest year 1979.

I

The among sites analyses for years 1971 and afterDiscussion do not

I

indicate any significant depression in coral growth from the Hallandale renourishment project. This conclusion is supported

I

by the among year within sites analyses.

(28)

I

3.2.2.iii) Hillsboro Beach Renourishment

I

June-Sept., 1973, 400,000 cu yds

Deerfield Coral Collection Site (DMMA, DDMA, DMDL, DDDL) Coral Years of Interest: 1973, 1974*, 1975

Among Sites At particular Years (Table 7)

I

Single years: For coral years 1973, 1974, and 1975 there were no significant site differences for either coral species.

Double there were species.

years: For coral years 1973-1974, and 1974-1975,

no significant site differences for either coral

I

Triple years: For coral years 1973-1974-1975 and 1974-1975

-1976, there were no significant site differences for either coral species.

Among Year Differences Within Sites (Table 8)

Normalized mean coral growth of coral year 1973 for Deerfield Mid site MA was the fourth lowest. Growth of this year was significantly less than growth of the highest year (1981) and significantly greater than growth of the lowest year (1970). For Deerfield Deep, MA growth of 1973 was also significantly greater than that of the lowest year 1970. For DL, Deerfield Mid 1973 growth was significantly greater than that of lowest year 1970. For Deerfield Deep, growth of 1973 was not significantly different from that of other years.

I

For 1975 growth of MA and DL corals of both Deerfield Mid and Deep sites was significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970).

I

For 1974, growth of MA corals of both Deerfield Mid and Deep sites was significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970). 1974 growth of DL corals of Deerfield Mid was also significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970).

Discussion

I

The among sites analyses did not suggest detrimental effects from beach renourishrnent, a conclusion generally supported by the among years analyses. There is little evidence for detrimental

growth effects on Deerfield collected corals from the Hillsboro

I

Beach renourishrnent project.

(29)

I

Renourishment3.2.2.iv) John U. Lloyd State Recreation Area Beach

I

Ft. Lauderdale Coral Collection S~te (FMMA, FMDL)Sept., 1976 to Feb., 1977, 1.1 million cu yds

Coral Years of Interest: 1977*, 1978

I

siteFt. site

Single years: For coral year 1977 there were no significant

differences for either coral species. For coral year 1978

Lauderdale Mid MA and DL corals did not exhibit significant

growth differences.

I

Double years: For coral years 1977-1978, no site

differences were evident for either species.

I

differences were evident for either species.Triple years: For coral years 1977-1978-1979, no site

I

1977 growth of Ft. Lauderdale Mid MA and DL was

significantly-greater than that of the lowest year (1970). 1978

growth of Ft. Lauderdale Mid MA was significantly greater than

that of the lowest year (1970). 1978 growth of Ft. Lauderdale

Mid DL was not significantly different from that of other years. Discussion

Neither analysis indicates adverse growth effects on Fort

I

Lauderdale collected corals from the John U. Lloyd State

Recreation Area beach renourishment project.

I

3.2.2.v)

Hollywood-Hallandale Beach Renourishment

I

July-Nov., 1979, 2 million cu yds

Hollywood Coral Collection Site (HMMA, HDMA, HMDL, HDDL)

Possible Coral Years of Interest: 1979, 1980*, 1981

I

site site all the site

Single years: For coral year 1979 there were no significant

differences for MA; however, DL corals of the Hollywood Deep exhibited significantly lower normalized growth than that of

other sites. Alternatively, the Hollywood Mid DL site had

second highest growth. For coral years 1980 and 1981, no

differences were evident for either species.

Double years: For coral years 1979-1980 and the species MA,

(30)

I

growth at Hollywood collection sites was not significantly

different from that at other sites. For the species DL, growth at the Hollywood Deep site was the lowest, significantly less than that at the highest growth site (Deerfield Deep). Hollywood Mid DL growth was second lowest. For the double coral years 1980-1981, there were no significant site differences for either species.

I

Triple years: For coral years 1979-1980-1981, there were no significant site differences for MA corals. For DL the Hollywood Deep site exhibited lowest normalized growth, significantly different from that of the two highest growth sites (Deerfield Deep and Mid). For the triple coral years 1980-1981-1982, coral species MA exhibited no site differences. DL corals of the Hollywood Deep collection had lowest normalized growth, statistically less than that of the site of highest normalized growth (Deerfield Mid).

I

For Hollywood sites and years 1979, 1980, and 1981, MA collections showed growth anomalies. For Mid depth corals, 1979 growth was the fourth lowest and was significantly less than growth of the two highest growth years. Year 1980 had the sixth lowest growth, significantly less than that of the two highest years. Year 1981 was the highest growth year, significantly greater than that of the eight lowest years. For Hollywood Deep MA, 1979 growth was the third lowest and was significantly less than growth of the highest year 1975. Growth in 1981 was significantly greater than that of the lowest year 1970.

I

Growth of years 1979, 1980, and 1981 did not exhibit statistical differences for the Mid depth DL collections. However, for the Deep DL site, 1979 growth was the lowest and was statistically less than growth of the highest five years. It should be noted that this was the only site in which coral year 1970 was not the lowest growth year. Growth of 1980 and 1981 was not significantly different from that of other years.

I

Discussion

I

The statistical analyses indicated depressed growth of

Hallandale beach renourishment. This is evident in the one, two,

I

Hollywood Deep DL corals in the years of and following

Hollywood-and three year among site analyses and is supported by the among year analyses. The result is suggestive of possible

I

renourishment effects on Hollywood collected corals. This

(31)

I

both depths and DL corals at Mid depth did not exhibit depressed growth.

I

3.2.2.vi) Pompano Beach Renourishment

I

June-Aug., 1983, 2 million cu yds

Pompano Coral Collection (PMMA, PMDL, PDMA, PDDL) Coral Years of Interest: 1983, 1984*, 1985

I

Single years: For coral year 1983, there were no significant site differences for either species. For the single cara 1 year 1984, MA exhibited no significant site differences.

For DL at this year, Pompano Mid and Deep site corals exhibited the third and fourth highest normalized growth which was significantly less than that of the highest grawth site (Hollywood Mid). For coral year 1985, there were no significant site differences for either species.

I

the DoublePompano yearssites were not significantly different: For both species for coral years 1983-1984,from other sites. For the double coral years 1984-1985, there were no significant site differences for either species.

I

Triple years: For coral years 1983-1984-1985, growth of both MA and DL Pompano corals exhibited no significant site differences.

I

For year 1983 Pompano Mid MA growth was significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970). Pompano Deep MA growth was also significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970), but was significantly less than that of the highest year (1981). Pompano Mid DL growth for 1983 did not differ significantly from that of other years. Pompano Deep DL growth was significantly less than that of the highest year (1976).

I

For year 1984 Pompano Mid MA growth was significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970). Pompano Deep MA growth was also significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970), but was significantly less than that of the highest

~.~'.?ar(1981). Pompano Mid and Deep DL growth was not

significantly different from that of other years.

I

For year 1985 Pompano Mid and Deep MA and DL growth was

significantly greater than that of the lowest year (1970).

Discussion

I

The among sites analyses did not demonstrate significantly

(32)

different growth at Pompano sites following renollrishment. While the among year within site analyses exhibited some differences,

there is little evidence from the site growth comparisons of detrimental effects on Pompano collected corals from the second

Pompano beach renourishment project.

3.2.3) Environmental Relationships

Miami Beach data consisted of average monthly sea surface

temperature and sea water density observations. Because density

data had been corrected to a constant temperatllre of 15 degrees

centigrade, it was an equivalent index of salinity. Data

coverage was approximately 1980 to 1955. Time series of each parameter were calculated as a selection of 3 month and 6 month combinations for each year. One 12 month series was calculated. For sea surface temperature, Fig. 10a presents monthly averages over the record and Fig. lOb presents seasonal (3 month averages) by year. Figs. 11a and 11b present similar relationships for sea water density.

Grand master chronologies of each species for each depth and for all depths were compared to Miami Beach environmental data time series using correlation analysis. Table 9 presents the product moment correlation coefficients calculated among coral

index masters and combined monthly time series data.

Sea surface temperature time series are occasionally correlated with coral growth. This is particularly evident for the JFM (January, February, and March) average. Sea surface density (salinity) time series are usually highly correlated with coral growth with the possible exception of the summer JAS (July,

I

(33)

I

August, and September) months.

The relatively strong and significant positive growth relationship with salinity variations may be representative of a direct salinity-growth effect. Although no direct data is

available, it is, however, hard to imagine that absolute salinity changes as recorded at Miami Beach would also occur several miles

offshore at depths of 10 and 20m. Alternatively, weather conditions may affect both salinity and coral growth: rainfall may cause salinity to decrease and the lowered light levels

associated with rainfall causes coral growth to decrease. Consequently, salinity variations at the beach may represent an index of available light levels at the offshore reefs.

More research (laboratory and in situ) is necessary to clarify and quantify these complex relationships. A larger environmental time series data set would also be helpful.

(34)

I

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This study was designed to investigate the growth of two species of hermatypic corals at various reef areas in Broward County, Florida. A goal was to evaluate sedimentation/turbidity effects from past beach renourishment projects in terms of depressed coral growth. For those years which corresponded to periods of beach renourishment projects, statistical analyses were conducted to compare normalized coral growth among sites.

The statistical evidence for those corals and sites examined indicates that, in general, years of and subsequent to Broward County beach renourishment projects do not correspond to times of lowered growth of currently living offshore reef corals.

A possible exception is the Hollywood-Hallandale renourishment project of 1979 in which one coral species (~ labyrinthiformis) from one site and dep th (Hollywood, lam) exhibited significantly lower normalized growth in comparison to other sites. However, this may not represent effects from the renourishment project. At the Hollywood site the other coral species (~ annularis) from both depths and ~ labyrinthiformis from Mid depth (9m) did not exhibit significantly lowered growth in comparison to other sites.

Site averages of absolute coral growth indicated that southern 9m depth specimens had higher rates of growth than northern counterparts for M. annularis. In the southern collection sites, 9m depth growth of both species tended to be greater than lam depth growth. The results might be explained by

(35)

I

availability at shallower depths.

Graphic comparisons and correlation analyses indicated that the time pattern of coral growth exhibits relatively high variability and is similar between sites~ species, and depths. This suggests the existence of a common, apparently natural, forcing function of the environment to which the corals are responding. Comparison of time series of coral growth data to recorded environmental variables revealed an occasional positive variation with temperature and astrong positive relation with salinity. This may be a direct effect of decreased coral growth caused by decreased salinity. Alternatively, the relationship may represent an indirect coral response to salinity. Low salinity is possibly representative of rainy, cloudy, low light conditions which in turn may act to depress coral growth rates.

(36)

5. REFERENCES

Aller, R.C. and R.E. Dodge, 1974, Animal-sediment relations in a tropical lagoon - Discovery Bay, Jamaica. J. Mar. Res. 32: 209-232.

Bak, R.P.M. and J.H.B.W. Elgershuizen, 1976, Patterns of oil sediment rejection in corals. Mar. Biol. 37: 105-113.

Buddemeier, R.W. and R.A. Kinzie, lIl, 1976, Coral growth. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 14: 183-225.

Coast and Geodetic Survey, p. 38.

1965, Publication 31-1, 2nd Edition,

Coles, S.L. and P.L. Jokiel, 1978, Synergistic effects of

temperature, salinity, and light on the hermatypic coral

Montipora verrucosa. Mar. Biol. 49: 187-195.

Cortes, J.N. and M.J. Risk, 1985, A reef under siltation stress: Cahuita, Costa Rica. Bull. Mar. Sci. 36: 339-356.

Dodge, R.E., R.C. Aller, and J. Thomson, 1974, Coral growth related to resuspension of bottom sediments. Nature 247: 574-577.

Dodge, R.E. and J. Thomson, 1974, The natural radiochemical and growth records in contemporary hermatypic corals from the Atlantic and Caribbean. Earth & Planet. Sci. Lett. 23: 313-322. Dodge, R.E. and J.R. Vaisnys, 1977, Coral populations and growth patterns: Responses to sedimentation and turbidity associated with dredging. J. Mar. Res. 35: 715-730.

Dodge, R.E. and J.R. Vaisnys, 1980, Skeletal growth chronologies of recent and fossil corals, In: Skeletal Growth of Aquatic Organisms, eds: D.C. Rhoads and R.A. Lutz, Vol. 1, Topics in Geobiology, Plenum Press, 750 pp.

Dodge, R.E. and J.C. Lang, 1983, Environmental correlates of Flower Gardens coral growth - northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 28: 228-240.

Dodge, R.E. and G.W. Brass. 1984, Skeletal extension, density, and calcification of a reef coral (Montastrea annularis): St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Bull. Mar. Sci. 34: 288-307.

Dodge, R.E. and K. Kohler, 1984, Image analysis of coral skeletons for extension rate, calcification rate, and density. Advances in Reef Science, Joint Meeting of Atlantic Reef Committee and the International Society of Reef Studies, Miami, p. 31-32. extended abstract.

S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith, A.H. Knap, S.R. Smith, and

I

(37)

I

the skeletal growth of the hermatypic coral Diploria strigosa.

Coral Reefs 3: 191-198.

I

Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith, A.H. Knap, C. Cook, T.R. Smith, and T.D. Sleeter, 1984b, Coral calcification rates by the buoyant weight technique: effects of alizarin staining. J. Exp.

Mar. Biol. Ecol. 75: 217-232.

I

Duane, n.B. and E.P. Meisburger, 1969. Morphology and sediments of the nearshore continental shelf, Miami to Palm Beach. Tech. Memo., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, No. 29.

Goldberg, Walter M., 1973, The ecology of the coral-ocotocoral communities off the southeast Florida coast: geomorphology,

species composition, and zonation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23: 465-488.

I

Goldberg, Walter M., 1984, Long term effects of beach in Broward County, Florida. A three year overview.

Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board, pp., pt. 2, 17 pp.

restoration Report for pt. 1, 20 Hubbard, J.A.E.B. and Y.P. Pocoek, 1972, Sediment rejection by recent scleractinian corals: a key to paleo-environmental reconstruction. Geol. Rundsch. 61: 598-626.

I

Hudson, J.H., E.A. Sclerochronology: a Geology 4: 361-364.

Shinn, R.B. Halley, and B. tooI for interpreting past

Lidz, 1976, environments.

I

Hudson, J.H. 1981, Growth rates in Montastraea record of environmental change in Key Largo coral Sanctuary, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 31: 444-459.

annularis: A reef Marine Jaap, W.C., 1984, The ecology of the south Florida coral reefs: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS;OBS - 82;08, 138 pp.

I

Knutson, D.W., R.W. Buddemeier, and S.V. Smith, 1972, Coral chronometers: seasonal growth bands in reef corals. Science 177: 270-272.

I

Lighty, R.G., 1977, Relict shelf-edge Holocene coral reef: southeast coast of Florida. Proc. 3rd Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2: 215-221.

I

Lighty,reef growth on the edge of the Florida shelf.R.G., I.G. Macintyre, and R. Stuckenrath, 1979, HoloceneNature 278: 281-282.

I

Loya, Y., 1976, Effects of water turbidity and sedimentation on the community structure of Puerto Rico corals. Bull. Mar. Sci.

26: 450-466.

Macintyre, I.G. and S.V. Smith, 1974, X-radiograph studies of

(38)

I

skeletal development in coral colonies. Proc. 2nd Int. Coral Reef

Symp. 2: 277-287.

I

Noshkin, V.E., Wong, K.M., Eagle, R.J., and G. Gatrousis, 1975, Transuanics and other radionuclides in Bikini Lagoon: concentration data retrieved from aged coral sections. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20: 729-742.

I

Pastorok, R.A. and G.R. Bilyard, pollution on coral-reef communities. Series 21: 175-189. 1985, Marine Effects of Ecology sewage Progress

I

Raymond, W.F., 1972, A geologie investigation of the sands and reefs of Broward County, Florida. MS Thesis, State Univ., 95 pp.

offshore

Florida

I

Raymond, W.F., 1978, Interim Report: reef damage survey for the Broward County Erosion Prevention Division, Broward County, Florida: D.E. Britt Associates, Inc., 51 pp.

I

Raymond, W.F. and A. Antonius, 1977, Final report: biological monitoring project of the John U. Lloyd Beach Restoration Project: D.E. Britt Associates, Inc., 41 pp.

I

Rogers, C.S., 1983, SubIethal and lethal effects of sediments applied to ~ommon caribbean reef corals in the field. Mar. Poll. Bull. 14: 378-382.

Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf, Freeman and Co., San Francisco,

1981, 2nd edition, Biometry, W.H. 859 pp.

I

Stoddart D.R., 1969, Ecology and morphology of recent coral reefs. Biol. Rev. 44: 433-498.

I

Tomascik, T. and F. Sander, 1985, Effects of eutrophication on reef-building corals 1. Growth rate of the reef-building coral Montastrea annularis. Mar. Biol. 87: 143-155.

Yonge, C.M., 1963, The biology of coral reefs. Adv. Mar. Biol. 1: 209-260.

I

Wells, J.W., 1957. Coral reefs. Mem. Geol. Soc. Am. 67: 609-631.

Zar, J.H., New Jersey,

1974, Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice Hall, Inc.,

620 pp.

I

(39)

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks staff members of the Broward County Erosion Prevention District (Louis Fisher, Stephen Higgins, Steven Somerville, Thomas Sullivan, and Joe Ligas)-for assistance in field support and coral collection. In addition, Louis Fisher provided valuable discussion and input for manuscript review and preparation.

Thanks also go to Johanna Snyder who provided quality coral X-radiography, laboratory skilIs, and manuscript review, to Nova students Denis Frazel and Carol Reese who assisted in some field collections, and to Kevin KohIer who assisted in statistical programming and data processing.

(40)

I

(41)

I

TABLE 1 CORAL COLLECTION INFORMATION BY SITE, OEPTH, AND

SPECIES

I

CORAL NUMBER NUMBER

SITE OEPTH DATES SPECIES CORALS CORALS COLLo >16 YRS

I

HOLLYW)()O MlD 12-Dec-85 9 M 22-Feb-86 (Hl+1A) 30-Qct-86 M.a. 20 14

I

(HMDL) 12-Dec-85 22-Feb-86 0.1. 15 14

I

HOLLYW)()D OEEP 04-Feb-85

(HCMA) 18 M 2O-Qct-86 M.a. 23 11

I

(HDDL) 04-Feb-85 0.1. 14 10

I

FT. IAUDEROALE

(FMt1A) MIO 22-Apr-86 M.a. 13 11 9 M

I

(FMDL) 22-Apr-86 0.1. 10 ,. 10

FT. IAUDEROALE

I

(FIlo1A) DEEP18 M 25-Apr-86 M.a. 14 0

(FDDL) 25-Apr-86 O.l. 0 0

I

POMPANO MID

(PM'-1A) 9 M 09-Jun-86 M.a. 16 10

I

(PMDL) 09-Jun-86 O.l. 13 13

I

POMPANO(PrMA) DEEP18 M 24-Jul-86 M.a. 19 10

(PODL) 24-Jul-86 0.1. 15 11

I

_DEERFIELD _MIO

I

(Il+1A)(r:MJL) 9 M 06-Aug-8606-Aug-86 M.a.0.1. 1311 1010

I

DEERFIELD DEEP (ODMA) 18 M 06-Aug-86 17-Nov-86 M.a. 15 10

I

(DOOL) 06-Aug-86 17-Nov-86 D.l. 12 10

I

TOTAL 223 154

I

35

(42)

I

(43)

I

TABLE 2

AVERAGE GRCWI'HRATE OF CORALS AT FACH SITE (CMIYR)

OVER !HE PERIOO 1985-1970

(Refer to Table 1 for Site abbreviations) Site Hr+1A FMt1A Pr+tA rM1A Mean 0.490 0.411 0.369 0.343

sn

0.166 0.156 0.124 0.130 N 448 352 320 320 NCorals 14 11 10 10 Site HMDL FMDL PMDL DMDL Mean 0.514 0.506 0.504 0.453

sn

0.108 0.110 0.101 0.100 N 448 320 416 320 NCorals 14 10 13 10

Site HIJ.1A FDMA PDMA OrMA

Mean 0.332 NOT 0.335 0.346

sn

0.088 SAMPLEn 0.101 0.086

N 352 320 320

NCorals 11 10 10

Site HDOL FOOL POOL OOOL

Mean 0.425 NOT 0.426 0.463

sn

0.091 SAMPLEn 0.091 0.082 N 320 352 320 NCorals 10 11 10

I

,

I

36

(44)

I

(45)

I

RESULTS OF STATISTICAL COMPARISONS (SNK TEST)TABLE 3 FOR RAW DATA

I

(Site codes consists of tw:J letters. 'The first refers to the location: H=Hollywood,F=Ft. Lauderdale, P=Pompano,D=Deerfield; the second refers to the depth: M=Mid, D=Deep.)

I

M. annularis SITES

(Si tes arranged from lowest to highest:

left to right, top to bottom)

*

indicates significant difference at least at p<.05

HO PD IX-1 DD PM FM HM HO

_*

_* PD

_*

DM

_*

DD

_*

PM _* FM

_*

HM

_*

I

"

I

~ labyrinthiformis SITES

(Sites arranged from lowest to highest : left to right, top to bottom)

*

indicates significant difference at least at p<.05

HO PO IX-1 DD PM FM HM

*

HO PO DM DD PM FM HM *

I

37

(46)

I

'

I

(47)

I

'

I

-I

I

TABLE 4

CORRELATION ANALYSES OF MASTER CHRONOLOGIES FOR 1985-1970

MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (r)

BE'IWEEN INDIVIDUAL SITE MASTER CHRONOLOGIES

1985-70 DATA, N=16, DF=14 (for p<.05, r>.497; for p<.Ol, r>.624) (1985-1970 means used for index calculation)

Hr+lA Fl+tA FM1A II+1A :HI:t>1A PIJ.1A Dr:r-1AHMDL FMDL PMDL IMDL HDDL PDDL DDDL

HMMA ---- 0.83 0.82 0.87 0.61 0.85 0.60 0.77 0.59 0.83 0.77 0.17 0.69 0.50 FMMA 0.83 ---- 0.87 0.78 0.49 0.87 0.53 0.69 0.58 0.68 0.78 0.04 0.53 0.40 PMMA 0.82 0.87 ---- 0.85 0.69 0.93 0.80 0.47 0.64 0.64 0.83 0.21 0.60 0.52 DMMA 0.87 0.78 0.85 ---- 0.57 0.90 0.69 0.64 0.55 0.71 0.86-0.06 0.43 0.52 HDMA 0.61 0.49 0.69 0.57 ---- 0.62 0.81 0.19 0.81 0.43 0.43 0.60 0.55 0.50 PDMA 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.90 0.62 ---- 0.76 0.63 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.10 0.52 0.50 DDMA 0.60 0.53 0.80 0.69 0.81 0.76 ---- 0.12 0.57 0.49 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.51 HMDL 0.77 0.69 0.47 0.64 0.19 0.63 0.12 ---- 0.26 0.57 0.46-0.21 0.31 0.05 FMDL 0.59 0.58 0.64 0.55 0.81 0.58 0.57 0.26 ---- 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.54 0.41 PMDL 0.83 0.68 0.64 0.71 0.43 0.67 0.49 0.57 0.50 ---- 0.69 0.27 0.68 0.58 DMDL 0.77 0.78 0.83 0.86 0.43 0.83 0.60 0.46 0.40 0.69 ----0.05 0.45 0.62 HDDL 0.17 0.04 0.21-0.06 0.60 0.10 0.51-0.21 0.35 0.27-0.05 ---- 0.59 0.33 PDDL 0.69 0.53 0.60 0.43 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.31 0.54 0.68 0.45 0.59 ---- 0.64 DDDL 0.50 0.40 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.05 0.41 0.58 0.62 0.33 0.64

----AVERAGE INTERNAL CORRELATION

ALL MA SITES MA MlD SITES MA DEEP SITES Mean N 0.75 21 0.84 6 0.73 3 Mean N 0.40 21 0.48 6 0.52 3 ALL DL SITES DL MlD SITES DL DEEP SITES AVE ALL SITES 0.534 N=49

MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

BE'IWEEN GRAND MASTER CHRONOLOGIES OVER 1985-1970 PERIOD

1985-70 DATA, N=16, DF=14 (for p<.05, r>.497; for p<.Ol, r>.624)

(using 1985-70 for index mean calculation) MlD DEEP ALL MID DEEP ALL

MA MA MA DL DL DL MAMID -- 0.82 0.97 0.95 0.50 0.86 MADEEP 0.82 -- 0.93 0.72 0.63 0.79 MAALL 0.97 0.93 0.91 0.57 0.87 DLMID 0.95 0.72 0.91 -- 0.50 0.89 DLDEEP 0.50 0.63 0.57 0.50 -- 0.83 DLALL 0.86 0.79 0.87 0.89 0.83 --38

(48)

I

(49)

,

I

t

I

TABLE 5

CORRELATION ANALYSES OF MASTER CHRONOLOGIES FOR 1985-1960

MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (r)

BE'lWEEN INDIVIDUAL SITE MASTER CHRONOLOOIES OVER 1985-1960 PERIOD N=26, DF=24 (for p<.05, r>.388; for p<.Ol, r>.496)

(1986-1960 means used for index calcu1ation)

Hr+1A JiMt1A Pl'+tA Dt+1A HDMA PDMA OI:Jl.1AHMDL FMDL PMDL DMDL HDOL POOL DDDL

Hr+1A --- 0.79 0.76 0.83 0.50 0.79 0.38 0.71 0.51 0.71 0.69 0.30 0.64 0.69 FMMA 0.79 --- 0.83 0.69 0.48 0.76 0.42 0.61 0.40 0.50 0.74 0.18 0.61 0.57 Pl'+tA 0.76 0.83 --- 0.74 0.69 0.69 0.66 0.29 0.23 0.29 0.59 0.28 0.59 0.55 DMMA 0.83 0.69 0.74 --- 0.55 0.81 0.61 0.48 0.42 0.44 0.73 0.14 0.54 0.67 HDMA 0.50 0.48 0.69 0.55 -_...0.31 0.79-0.02 0.13-0.05 0.33 0.56 0.57 0.56 PDMA 0.79 0.76 0.69 0.81 0.31 0.42 0.63 0.61 0.62 0.72 0.17 0.53 0.55 DOMA 0.38 0.42 0.66 0.61 0.79 0.42 --- -0.12-0.03-0.15 0.38 0.47 0.57 0.43 HMDL 0.71 0.61 0.29 0.48-0.02 0.63-0.12 --- 0.57 0.83 0.58 0.08 0.29 0.49 FMDL 0.51 0.40 0.23 0.42 0.13 0.61-0.03 0.57 --- 0.66 0.45 0.28 0.34 0.42 PMDL 0.71 0.50 0.29 0.44-0.05 0.62-0.15 0.83 0.66 --- 0.63 0.23 0.35 0.53 DMDL 0.69 0.74 0.59 0.73 0.33 0.72 0.38 0.58 0.45 0.63 --- 0.18 0.57 0.68 HDDL 0.30 0.18 0.28 0.14 0.56 0.17 0.47 0.08 0.28 0.23 0.18 --- 0.62 0.46 PODL 0.64 0.61 0.59 0.54 0.57 0.53 0.57 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.57 0.62 --- 0.67 DDDL 0.69 0.57 0.55 0.67 0.56 0.55 0.43 0.49 0.42 0.53 0.68 0.46 ~.67

---AVERAGE INTERNAL CORRELATION MA ALL SITES MA MlD SITES MA OEEP SITES MEAN N 0.643 21 O.:.·~ 's 0.508 3 MEAN 0.472 0.620 0.586 N 21 6 3 DL ALL SITES DL MID SITES DL OEEP SITES

MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

BE'lWEEN GRAND MASTER CHRONOLOGIES OVER 1985-1960 PERIOD N=26, OF=24 (for p<.05, r>.388; for p<.Ol, r>.496)

(1986-1960 means used for index calcu1ation)

MID MA DEEP MA ALL MA MID DL DEEP DL ALL DL

MID OEEP ALL MID OEEP ALL

MA MA MA DL DL DL --- 0.73 0.95 0.68 0.65 0.78 0.73 --- 0.91 0.17 0.69 0.42 0.95 0.91 --- 0.49 0.71 0.67 0.68 0.17 0.49 --- 0.49 0.93 0.65 0.69 0.71 0.49 --- 0.77 0.78 0.42 0.67 0.93 0.77 ---39